Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds planning commission, denies appeal of garage height variance at 81 Belvedere Avenue
Summary
The Belvedere City Council on Tuesday denied an appeal and upheld the planning commission’s January decision to grant a variance allowing portions of a garage and carport at 81 Belvedere Avenue to exceed the municipal 28-foot height limit.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Belvedere City Council on Tuesday denied an appeal and upheld the planning commission’s January decision to grant a variance allowing a garage and attached carport at 81 Belvedere Avenue to exceed the 28-foot height limit in a small portion of its roof.
Planning staff had described the project as a new 4,834-square-foot single-family residence with an attached garage and accessory dwelling unit. The applicant requested a variance because portions of the proposed garage and carport roof would project above the municipal 28-foot height plane for structures within the first 40 feet from the street. Staff reported the roof encroachment occurred on two small rear triangles of the garage/carport roof and estimated that, excluding eaves, the encroaching area was on the order of tens of square feet (staff initially stated 86 square feet and later clarified the net encroachment area excluding exempt eaves is smaller).
The council heard two competing narratives. The appellants — homeowners Justin Wicket and Emily Poplowski, represented by attorney Anna Welch and architect Michael Rex — argued the variance reflects discretionary, luxury design choices and is not required by site conditions. They said alternatives were feasible (reducing garage ceiling height, shortening the roof thickness, relocating solar panels or removing the carport roof) and that their views and quiet enjoyment would be harmed. Architect Rex called the proposed roof thickness and 9-foot garage ceiling “unnecessary” and said the design choices — a covered third parking space and a cantilevered roof — caused the variance.
The applicants, Melissa and Patrick Fader, represented by architect Steven Sutro and counsel Tom Tunney, told the council lot shape and steep topography create special circumstances. Sutro said the property’s steep slope (staff noted areas at or above roughly 70% slope) forces the building to align to the street grade to avoid flooding into the garage; moving the building would steepen the structure relative to the hill and increase visual bulk. The applicants’ team also warned that sloping the rear of the garage roof to avoid the variance would reduce interior ceiling height, change the building’s structural detailing and create an unattractive interior slope or drainage complications.
Staff reviewed the variance criteria in Belvedere Municipal Code section 19.84.010 and recommended that the council find (1) granting a variance would not constitute a special privilege because similar minor variances have been approved in the past, (2) special circumstances related to the parcel’s steep slope and triangular shape apply, and (3) the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety or the property of others. The staff report included examples of other properties on Belvedere Island that had previously received height variances and photographs taken from neighbors’ decks.
After public comment, rebuttal and deliberation, a majority of council members concluded the variance findings could be made: they agreed the site’s steep slope and lot geometry create special circumstances and that the limited roof encroachment shown in staff exhibits would not be injurious to neighboring properties. The council moved to deny the appeal and to uphold the planning commission’s approval of the variance. The motion carried; the council adopted the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the planning commission’s decision.
Council discussion reflected concern about variances generally and a desire to preserve community views; multiple members said they disliked variances but felt the specific facts of this site supported the findings. The council did not direct staff to return with design changes or further mitigation beyond conditions already attached to the planning approval (including required landscape screening).
(Reporting note: numerical measurements, square-foot figures and quoted planning criteria come from the staff presentation and the public hearing record of the Belvedere City Council on March 10, 2025.)

